Age Of Superannuation Fixed By AICTE Binding On All Universities/Institutions; Madras HC Directs Reinstatement Of Principal Of Pondicherry Engineering College

The bench of Justice V Parthiban was hearing two connected writ petitions filed by Dr. S Kothandaraman and Dr. A.V Raviprakash, Principal and Professor at the Pondicherry Engineering College against their forced retirement by the University. The university had prescribed the age of superannuation as 62 years as against the age of 65 years prescribed by AICTE.

Background

The petitioners in both the writs were the Principal and Professors of the Pondicherry Engineering College. The Pondicherry Engineering College was established in the year 1984. It was an autonomous technical institution fully funded by the government and governed by the AICTE regulations. However, in 2019, the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 was introduced providing for the reconstitution of Puducherry Engineering College as a Technological University. This Act came into effect on 05.09.2020.

The service conditions of the teaching staff were regulated by the AICTE. The latest AICTE regulation namely, AICTE REGULATIONS ON PAY SCALES, SERVICE CONDITIONS AND MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF SUCH AS LIBRARY, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING & PLACEMENT PERSONNEL IN TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DEGREE) REGULATION, 2019" dated 01.03.2019 prescribed the age of superannuation of all faculty members and Principals/Directors of institutions as 65 years and even up to 70 years of age on fulfillment of certain conditions.

Notwithstanding these regulations, the petitioners were forcibly retired on completion of 62 years of age. Aggrieved by this premature retirement, the present writ petitions were filed to direct the University to continue their services till they attain the age of superannuation in terms of the AICTE regulations.

The petitioners contended that as per the savings clause in the 2019 Act, whatever that was applicable before the coming into force of the Technological University Act, 2019, as on 05.09.2020, the same would be continued, and the teaching staff would be governed by such regulations. Thus, according to him, the university could not fix its own retirement age without considering the AICTE regulations. He further argued that the regulations were issued under a Central Act viz., All India Council for Technical Education Act, and individual institutions or universities were bound to follow the same.

He further contended that when the regulations were automatically made applicable to all the technical institutions, there was no question of "adopting" these regulations based on the convenience of individual institutions/universities. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Ors where the court had held that when there is a conflict between two legislations, the Central legislation will prevail to the extent of repugnancy.

The counsel then relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr.Jogender Pal Singh and Others vs. Union of India and others (2021) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dr.G.R.Bharat Sai Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2021) where the courts have reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the applicability of AICTE regulations

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the above regulation was applicable only if the University/institution was complying with the entire AICTE scheme/regulation. The University had taken a decision not to take any financial assistance from the Central Government in respect of the arrears of pay to be paid to its employees on account of revision of pay scales in pursuance of its implementation of the VII CPC and restricted its payments only from 01.08.2019. In the absence of seeking central assistance towards payment of arrears of revision of payment to its employees from 01.01.2016 in terms of clause 2.11 of the AICTE regulations, there cannot be any insistence on automatic applicability of prescription of the age of superannuation in terms of regulation 2.12.

On behalf of AICTE, it was contented that all technical institutions are governed under the regulations of AICTE dated 01.03.2019 including prescription of the age of superannuation. Reliance was also placed in the decision of Bombay High Court in Lalit Rajendra Gajanan vs. Vidyavardhani, thorugh its Secretary (2021) wherein the age of superannuation itself was in question. The Bombay High Court had held that the age of superannuation fixed by AICTE would prevail over the age fixed by the higher education department of the State.

Considering the contentions of all the parties involved, the court opined that, the university was blissfully oblivious to the constitutional scheme and also various case laws which have consistently held that the AICTE regulations are mandatory in nature. The warped interpretation of regulation 2.11 by the University to wriggle out of its legal obligation in regard to the prescription of the age of superannuation, is to be discountenanced as being downrightly vexatious.

Further, the court held that t the age of superannuation as prescribed under regulation 2.12 is binding on the third respondent University and any other prescription of the age of superannuation repugnant to the AICTE regulation is to be held void and inoperative and it cannot be enforced in law.

Mr.Karthik Rajan appeared for the petitioners. Ms.N.Mala appeared for respondents 1 and 4, and Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, for the 5^th respondent (AICTE).

Case Title: Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter

Case No: W.P No. 17918 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163

Click here to read/download judgment